tonight, battleground america. the looming fiscal cliff and the fight to save the economy. in his first interview since the big romney loss, i will ask reince priebus if his party is out of touch with the country. plus his plans to fix the gop. plus president obama's tax push. he wants the rich to pay up but is it fair? and one of the most influential spiritual leaders in the world, america's pastor, rick warren. he was there at barack obama's first inauguration. will he be there again? we're talking politics, same sex marriage and the "two and a half men" star whose christian conversion has him attacking his own show. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening.

our big story tonight, countdown to financial doomsday, the fiscal cliff and the clock is ticking. 35 days left before this massive sweeping tax hike. america's now at the mercy of washington, hoping that both sides can end the fighting and make a deal. anti-tax champion grover norquist last night told me he's keeping republicans to the no tax increase pledge they made decades ago. but should his party back away from that promise? joining me in his first interview since the election, reince priebus, chairman of the republican national committee. welcome back, mr. priebus. how are you? >> doing great, piers. how are you? >> you have been keeping your head below the paraput since the shellacking you guys took in the election. what is your reaction to the pretty poor defeat? >> well, i think that we got to look at everything that we're doing. i think that's what we have to do. i don't think you can draw any quick conclusions other than the fact that we lost and we know that. but i think in order to get back in the game, you've got to look at and do a full autopsy of what

happened, what we did well, what we didn't do well, what we can do better in the next year with two governors' races coming up and two years later, then four years from now. so what we're going to do is we want to bring everyone together. leaders from across the country, to look at everything that we've done, come up with a game plan, sort of a four-year plan of what we can do in the communities, out there across america, to do a long sustained year by year campaign and operation, and learn from what obama did and then learn from some of our mistakes and keep doing some of the things that we've done well. >> with hindsight, was it a mistake to choose mitt romney as the republican nominee? >> no, i don't think so at all. i think he would have made a great president. i think most people that were polled actually thought he would make a better president than even barack obama, but i think that what we saw in team obama was something that was pretty good in the sense of a four-year long campaign on the ground in the communities, something that

we're going to look at doing as well. but there are other things at play, too. there's macro politics and microtargeting and everything in between. it's not something obviously that we can cover in a seven-minute interview, but i think that what we can conclude is that we've got to be better, and that's something that we're committed to doing and i think our grassroots and our donors are all committed to doing more and doing more of a sustained operation in the years to come. >> one of the big challenges that will be facing the gop now, of course, is the fiscal cliff. the new cnn/orc poll, when asked is the gop doing enough to cooperate with obama, 70% said no, of americans, whereas when they asked if obama is doing enough to cooperate with the gop, 45% yes, 49% no. clearly the republicans are being predominantly blamed for the breakdown in bipartisanship in washington.

the fiscal cliff is a classic opportunity, many would argue, to show the americans you've listened, you've changed, you're ready to do deals that are to the benefit of the american national interest. >> well, i mean, piers, look, the president's the leader of this country and he's got to lead and he's got to take control, and he's got to show the american people that he can put people together and a team together, meaning republicans and democrats, and come up with solutions but so far, piers, we don't even know what the president's plans are. he's done a good job of apparently making americans feel that that's the case, but what he hasn't done a good job is really leading with evidence and with substance on the table as far as what he would do. here's the problem, piers. if we really want to have an honest discussion about where we're at in this country and this fiscal problem facing america, the reality is if you look at any chart, and you study any basic description of what's happening to this country, what you'll see is that as compared

to revenue, our bigger problem in this country by far, by an astronomical amount, is what's happening with regard to the spending that's going on in washington. >> yes, yes, but hang on. let me jump in. >> but it's dishonest -- >> i've heard all this. i've heard all this. grover norquist -- >> but it's true. you can hear it a thousand more times. >> it may true to republican party, but the reality is in the cnn/orc poll just taken -- >> i understand. >> hang on. hang on. would you prefer a budget plan with only spending cuts, 29%, would you prefer a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, 67%. a thumping, thumping majority of americans would prefer to see cuts in spending and tax increases. but you republicans led by grover norquist are absolutely intransigent about allowing any

raise in taxation, yet the american public want you to do it. >> listen, first of all, there's a lot of things you said that aren't true. >> well, name one. >> nobody is -- first of all, no one is opposed to increasing revenues by closing some loopholes, but they -- >> that wasn't what i said. hang on. that wasn't -- that was not what i said. that wasn't what i said. >> they want commensurate tax cuts -- >> hang on. you said what i said wasn't true. reince, come on. i have to stop you here. no. you can't put words in my mouth. you said what i said wasn't true, then you give a completely different answer to what i actually said. >> okay. listen, here's the issue. the issue is if you took every dime of profit from every fortune 500 company in america, took it all, send it all to washington, you would run the federal government for six months. here's my point, piers. the point is it is absolutely

intellectually dishonest to have a conversation about tax increases unless and until you talk about massive cuts in spending of the federal government, getting our spending to gdp ratio below 20%, it's about at 25% today, and my point is, is that the first problem is spending. and i don't think you can even get to a dishonest conversation about how tax increases is somehow going to resolve this problem, it's like going to the hospital with a broken leg, taking a bunch of pain pills and after a few hours, you still have the broken leg. you have to fix the broken leg, piers. >> but the point i'm making to you is that in the cnn poll, it wasn't just about raising taxes. it's about a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. now, let me play a quote from jay carney talking about exactly what the president is offering.

>> here's a fact. the president has on the table a proposal that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, that does so in a balanced way, that includes substantial cuts to discretionary non-defense spending, over $1 trillion, it includes revenue and includes $340 billion in savings from our health care entitlement programs. >> fairly unequivocal, isn't it? it's a mixture of pretty substantial spending cuts and tax increases. >> we haven't seen the plan. i haven't seen the plan. i don't think the speaker -- >> are you accusing the president of lying? is the president lying? >> where is the plan? >> is he lying? >> i don't think the plan's out there. i think jay carney might be but i don't see the plan. maybe they have a plan. >> jay carney is lying and he's the white house spokesman. >> no. >> they're lying, are they? >> i'm not saying that. piers, maybe they've got -- >> you just did. you just called him a liar. >> they haven't shared the plan

with the american people. paul ryan and the republicans in congress have passed twice now and last year -- excuse me, two years ago as well, a ten year plan for a budget that deals with the ten-year debt window, that deals with the deficits, that deals with entitlement reform. we have done that time and time again. it's the democrats, it's the democrats and this president that haven't passed a budget in over three and a half years. for us to be lectured as far as budgetary discipline, piers, by the democrats is absurdity. we're the only ones that passed a budget in this country for the past three and a half years. it's the democrats that violated the law and didn't do their job for the american people and it's the president that hasn't led this country and come up with a plan for the american people. jay carney might say hey, listen, we've got a plan and this is the plan. well then share the plan with the american people. then we can get somewhere in this country and we can actually

tackle the spending and debt that's going to bankrupt us all. >> reince, if the plan is exactly as he has stated here, and it includes some tax increases as the vast majority, nearly two thirds, more than two thirds of the american public want, actually want, if that is on the table, why wouldn't the republicans sign up to it? >> listen, i don't know the details of what he's offering, piers. i'm not trying to hide behind any of it. i just can't actually have an intelligent conversation about a plan hypothetically that we haven't seen, that might include tax increases and might not and might include some deduction loophole eliminations that we haven't seen. how can you have an intelligent conversation like this? you actually have to see a plan, you have to have a negotiation, you have to discuss these things and potentially an open forum, for the american people to make a decision. but right now from this

president we don't have anything but talking points and apparently, jay carney's comments today at a press conference. >> if your plan had been so popular, though, you would have won the election and you lost badly. >> well, that's one -- that could be one -- that could be one issue but there's a lot of issues that were being discussed at the -- during the time of the election and there's a lot of reasons for losing and there's a lot of reasons for winning. but tax increases i'm sure on the ballot weren't a reason that we lost the election. >> let's move on to another subject today which is the ongoing battle between john mccain and a few senators and ambassador susan rice. there is a view that it's all beginning to get a little too personal, a little too ugly. what is your opinion of it? >> well, listen, that's one of the things, national security, the decisions that have to be made in regard to the secretary of state, i'm going to leave that up to the leadership in our

senate. >> it's good to see you again. i have actually missed you on the airways, reince priebus. welcome back. take care. president obama is launching a full court press of bush era tax cuts are allowed to expire, it will cripple the economy. mr. kruger, welcome to you. >> thank you. >> is the president going to hold his nerve and increase taxes or is he going to be bullied off by the republicans to try and do a deal to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff? >> the president has been quite clear that he wants a balanced approach to our deficit problems, that he wants higher revenue raised from increasing taxes for the top 2%, the most fortunate americans, and spending cuts so that we are on a fiscally sustainable path. >> but what happens if the republicans get to december 30th and say no deal?

we are not going to sign up to anything that involves genuinely increasing taxation even for the 2%? what is plan b? >> well, first of all, i don't think that's in the country's best interest, and i think we've heard from republicans that they are finally talking about raising revenue from upper income families, so these are solvable problems and we are doing our best to try to solve them. >> right. but everyone is getting very tired of this groundhog day fiscal cliff scenario. i feel like i've been covering this my entire life. there's got to be a sense in washington of the public just wanting this to be settled sooner rather than later. a show of bipartisan cooperation that actually gets things done. >> oh, i agree with that. congress set up this process to force themselves to make a decision, to reach a more sustainable set of policies, and

that's what we're working towards. i think it will help the economy if we do reach reasonable agreement that is balanced, that raises revenue from the most fortunate americans and reduces our spending so we're growing the budget at a sustainable rate, and if we don't do that, the president has made it quite clear he's not going to sign an extension of the bush tax cuts for the upper income groups, and that would cause tremendous damage to the economy if we're pushed in a situation where all of the rates go back to their earlier levels. that would cause a big tax increase on middle class families which the president has made quite clear he wants to protect. 98% of american families.

so we're working very hard to try to address these problems so that the typical middle class family won't see a $2200 tax increase next year. >> i interviewed grover norquist yesterday, who is still maintaining that a pledge is a pledge is a pledge, and that the republicans who are beginning to slightly jump over the ship are betraying their own pledges and shouldn't be doing this. what do you feel about grover norquist and his implacable opposition to raising taxes which seems to have been the mantra for so many republicans for so long? >> i'm an economist and to me, the solution to our problems is quite clear. we should pursue as the president has proposed a balanced approach. we had higher tax rates for upper income families in the 1990s and the economy did quite well. we added 23 million jobs and had a budget surplus at the end of the 1990s.

so this view that raising tax rates for the most fortunate 2% of families back to where they were during the clinton years would hurt the economy, i think is just plain wrong. >> thank you for joining me. i appreciate it. >> thanks for having me. coming next, battleground america. i talked to two top business experts with very different views on the fiscal cliff and how to save the economy. [ female announcer ] imagine skin so healthy, it never gets dry again. can your moisturizer do that? [ female announcer ] dermatologist recommended aveeno has an oat formula, now proven to build a moisture reserve, so skin can replenish itself. that's healthy skin for life. only from aveeno. [ female announcer ] holiday cookies are a big job.

everything has to be just right. perfection is in the details. ♪ get to holiday fun faster with pillsbury cookie dough. [ gordon ] for some this line is a convenience. how you doing today? i'm good thanks. how are you? i'm good. [ gordon ] but for others, it's all they can afford. every day nearly nine million older americans don't have enough to eat. anything else? no, not today. join me, aarp, and aarp foundation in the drive to end hunger by visiting drivetoendhunger.org.

it's a little funny to watch a senator or congressman who got himself elected by promising the citizens of his state that he would go to washington to reform government, not raise taxes to paper over problems, deciding that when they haven't done that and the going gets rough, that they have an argument with me? >> anti-tax champ grover norquist with me last night. republicans are keeping their no-tax promise but is the fiscal cliff a game changer? with me, robert reish, author of "beyond

outrage" and business strategist and author, carol roth. welcome to you both. let me start with you, carol. here's what i don't get when i talk to the republicans, particularly the grover norquist gang. when you have an intransigent utterly implacable position like a pledge, there will be no tax increase come what may, it just

seems to me looking on the outside as a brit, educate me about this, a ridiculous thing to do when you have no idea what may happen next. >> i don't disagree with that. i don't know that i would have ever signed that pledge but they have that pledge in place. i think that that's not the crux of the issue, though, piers. the crux of the issue is in terms of raising taxes, will that fix the problems of the united states, and it absolutely will not. the fact of the matter is we have a crazy amount of debt and we have an economy that's not growing. so does raising taxes fix the spending problem, no. and will it get the economy going, no. so regardless of pledge or no pledge, i don't have a horse in this race, i'm part of the common sense party here, we have to fix the problem and raising taxes doesn't fix that problem. >> warren buffett came out this week and said the exact opposite. no disrespect to you but he's worth $40 billion and is considered to be the most successful investor in the history of mankind. he says throughout his life, throughout his career, there have been many periods with much higher tax rates, it's never made a dicky bird's difference to people's willingness to invest and that the combination of reduced spending and a few higher taxes for the wealthier people in america is the perfect answer. i just don't get a coherent argument why you can't do a bit of both. >> here's the issue, is that we have never had a period with more than 1% of the gdp in terms of tax hikes since 1969. that was the last time that happened and that put us into a recession and then we had several decades of increasing unemployment. the amount of tax hikes we're talking about here, piers, are

about 3% of the gdp. so you're comparing apples to oranges. you can't say well, under clinton, this didn't happen. that was less than 1% of the gdp. we're talking three times that in the situation that we're in today, having a 3% increase in taxes as a percentage of the gdp will throw us back into a recession. does that make sense? >> robert reish -- i'll ask robert reish. he's the perfect guy to ask. what do you think, robert?

>> i don't think that's correct. we do have a huge budget deficit. i don't think taxes should be increased on the middle class but we have an almost record percentage of total national income going to the wealthiest 1% of americans. i don't see why they should be let off the hook. why shouldn't they pay their fair share? they are paying a lower tax rate

today and effective -- >> that doesn't solve the problem. >> -- in about 80 years and it will help solve the problem because that means more revenues into government. almost everybody, everybody who has looked at this issue, common sense party people, will say that you've got to have some

balance between spending cuts and tax increases, particularly on the wealthy. i don't see what the problem is. we had a tax increase on the wealthy in the clinton administration, the economy did tremendously well. we had a tax cut particularly on the wealthy in the bush administration, the george w. bush administration, and very few jobs were created and the median wage started to drop, and that ended in the great recession. i don't think there's any correlation between raising taxes on the rich and economic growth or lack of economic growth. >> under president clinton, we had an increasing national debt for every single year with the exception of his last year. every single year, the national debt increased. the only reason we have this surplus farce is because we're counting the amount we took in from social security. that should be off the table entirely. it's something different. that was included in the general fund. if you backed out social security, he would have ran a deficit. so that is one of the imaginary tales that people are telling to try and sell this tax increase. fundamentally, increasing taxes right now and i'm not talking about forever, i'm talking about today, in the state of our economy today, would put us back into recession and it would be

detrimental for everybody. so let's take it off the table for today. >> on that point, carol, warren -- >> if i may, piers, i just don't understand that point because again, i understand why we don't want to raise taxes on the middle class, the vast middle class, because their spending is important, a lot of people are very hard up. the median wage has declined substantially over the past 30 years. in fact, it's 8% adjusted for inflation below what it was in 2000. but in terms of the very we have a common problem. it's called a budget deficit, particularly in out years. we have some common responsibilities and when you do consider that the wealthy in this country are taking home between 20% and 25% of total income, total wealth of this country, we haven't seen this degree of concentrated income and wealth in 80 years. if i may just finish my thought for just a second. >> i'm afraid i have to jump in. >> the effective tax rate is lower than it's been in 50 years. >> we've run out of time. the good news is, that was a terrific debate. we've got 35 days left. i will bring you both back and we will carry it on. thank you both very much.

>> thanks very much. coming up, america's pastor rick warren joins me live to talk politics, faith, same sex marriage and much more. that's next. ♪... ♪... choose the perfect hotel something this delicious could only come from nature. now from the maker of splenda sweeteners, discover nectresse. the only 100% natural, no-calorie sweetener made from the goodness of fruit. the rich, sweet taste of sugar.

nothing artificial. ♪ it's all that sweet ever needs to be. new nectresse. sweetness naturally.

♪ [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

we're grateful to live in this land, a land of unequalled possibility, where the son of an african immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. >> pastor rick warren at president obama's inauguration in 2009. he's been called america's pastor and considered to be one of the most influential men in the world both as a religious leader and philanthropist. he's the author of "the purpose driven life" now marking its tenth anniversary and sales of over 32 million copies. rick warren joins me now. that must be even to you pretty staggering, isn't it? 32 million copies? >> nobody's more surprised than i am. actually, i don't think actually anybody bought them. my mom and i gave them all away, all 32 million copies.

>> we've had a great debate tonight about this fiscal cliff and really it comes down to this. whether the wealthier 2% of americans should be paying a bigger share of taxation. republicans almost to a man or woman seem utterly opposed to this, but warren buffett, the richest guy in america, is advocating that's exactly what should happen. you are somebody who's interesting to me because you give away 90% of all your earnings and you famously do that and you have given away millions as a result. what do you think? i'm assuming you would be in the wealthiest who should give away more, right? >> yeah. i actually think it's better for people to give it away than for it to be taken away. i would maybe disagree with both sides and say i would like to see a tax code that rewards generosity, that rewards behavior that causes people -- see, piers, if somebody taxes me to do good, i don't get any credit for it. it's not my -- it's not my volunteerism involved. on the other hand, if you

incentivize people to be generous which by the way, america is by far the most generous nation in the world, and one of the reasons for it is actually the tax code. there are countries that are not very generous because people don't have actually that much to give. so i would love to see -- one of the things they're talking about right now is well, we don't want to raise taxes so we will lower deductions. maybe we'll lower deductions on for instance charitable giving. what does that do? it stymies the behavior we actually want to support, that we want to favor, which is teaching people to be more generous. that's good for the heart. >> i actually think that's a really good point. i think that that is the last thing they should be doing. they should make it as you say more incentivizing thing to give money to charities because that's actually, as you say, it makes you feel better, doesn't it?

just writing a check to the government. >> it's good for character and as you said, i don't get any reward for being taxed to help other people. clearly the scripture says that people who have more are to help those who have less. actually, the purpose of influence is to speak up for those who have no influence. i find that often both sides will agree on the ultimate goal which is to help people. the problem is the dividing over what's the best method to do that. and when we start, you know, denying each other's motivations or questioning each other's

motivations and why you do what you want to do, you know, piers, the bottom line is in america, everybody really wants the same thing. everybody in america wants good health care -- wants their kids to be healthy. everybody wants their family to be safe. everybody wants the freedom to believe and live as they want to believe and live. everybody wants our nation to be secure. everybody wants to have peace. everybody wants to have prosperity. the debates are always over how, how do you get there. and when we disagree on the how, what often happens, i saw this happening, to me it was very disappointing in the last election cycle, is that people start questioning other people's motives because they have a different method than yours. i happen to know both republicans and democrats who are quite patriotic, and to question their patriotism because they believe a different method of getting to the goal that we all agree on to me seems a little disingenuous. >> have you ever known america to be so divided, politically in particular, with washington, approval ratings for everyone in washington are at record lows. but it does seem to be

particularly poisonous. i thought this election campaign really plummeted new depths on occasion. >> as you know, it was reported that i canceled the saddleback civil forum on the presidency for this very reason. early in the election cycle, before the republican candidate had even been chosen, both sides talked to me about doing the civil forum again, and it was well received the last time, four years ago, and i thought well, okay, i'll think about it. but i just found that to be honest with you, in my personal opinion, neither side was really presenting a compelling vision of the future because there was so much negativity over the other guy as a jerk. we spent $2 billion on this election and literally, nothing changed. we have the same white house, we have the same congress and we have the same senate and i'm

going what was that all about. was that really necessary, did that really prove the value of negative ads, did that really prove the value of demeaning somebody else simply because they disagree with you. you know, this goes back to the whole issue of tolerance. tolerance used to mean i respect you and i treat you with dignity and i could even love you, even though i may violently disagree with you. i totally disagree with what you say but you're a child of god so i will treat you with respect and dignity. now, tolerance has changed in meaning. today, mean people actually think tolerance means you must agree with me and if -- unless you agree with me, then you are intolerant. in other words, if they don't understand the difference between tolerance and approval. if i were to say, let me just say this. if i were to say i believe everybody in america should be baptized, in fact, i think you should be baptized and you must accept that as a part of your lifestyle, then if you said to me well, rick, i don't think

that's right, i happen to disagree with you, it would be nonsense for me to say to you well, piers, you're a bigot or you're hateful or you're afraid of me. it's just not true. you just happen to disagree. >> look -- >> if you only love people you agree with, you're not going to love anybody. because even your wife disagrees with you a lot of the times. >> my wife disagrees with me almost all the time. let's take a break. we will come back and explore tolerance because i will put you to the test. there are a few things i want to talk to you about in which i strongly disagree with you. >> that's fine. gecko (clearing throat) thank you, mr. speaker, uh, members of congress. in celebration of over 75 years of our government employees insurance company, or geico...as most of you know members it.congress. ...i propose savings for everyone! i'm talking hundreds here... and furthermore.. newscaster:breaking news. the gecko is demanding free pudding. and political parties that are actual parties!?

with cake! and presents! ah, that was good. too bad nobody could hear me. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

about 2% of americans are homosexual, are gay, lesbian people. we should not let 2% of the population determine to change the definition of marriage. god created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation. >> pastor rick warren speaking out against same sex marriage. i'm back with him now.

so let's talk about gay marriage for a moment because clearly, a number of states in america are moving to legalize this, and it's becoming less and less of a kind of hot button issue and more of a sort of inevitable change in social times. your position has remained pretty entrenched about this. here's my issue with it. unless i'm wrong, and clarify this for me, you base your opposition to it on the literal interpretation of what the bible says about marriage. am i right? >> yeah, that's true. everybody has a source of authority for their lives. some people, the source of authority is culture. some people, their source of authority is philosophy. everybody has a world view. my world view simply happens to be based on a literal and strict interpretation of scripture. not everybody's interpretation but it is mine. >> right. here's my problem. i'm a catholic like you, and i

respect the bible enormously and i respect actually all religious beliefs from everybody. here's my problem with taking the literal interpretation of the bible to the modern era and not allowing yourself to move with the times. it's this. there are so many things in the bible which are plainly ridiculous these days, right? children, you curse their parents will be put to death. there would be no children left over the age of 8 in america, right? with the possible exception of yours. if you commit adultery, you will be put to death. you yourself in an interview with ann curry on nbc which i remember watching, you admitted you have looked lustfully at women but never sealed the deal. if you look lustfully at women according to matthew 5:28, i tell you anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

then leviticus says if you commit adultery, you should be put to death. you will have to stone yourself if you take the bible literally. >> i know where you're going with this. this is a very common misunderstanding on the laws of scripture, piers. there aren't just one set of laws in scripture. there are actually three sets of laws and they are not equally binding. many people think every law in the bible is the exact same kind of law. in the bible, there are three kinds of laws. there are civil laws, which by the way apply only to the nation of israel. those are called civil laws. there are ceremonial laws which are the laws that apply to cleanliness as kosher jews would practice today, in the laws of leviticus, the priestly laws, ceremonial laws involve worship, then there are moral laws. as a christian, i'm not bound by the civil laws given to the nation of israel, and i'm not even bound by the cerenial laws given to the priesthood of israel. i am bound, i believe, to the moral laws. the ten commandments are neither civil laws nor ceremonial. those are moral laws. they were the ones chiselled in stone. so when people -- it's a very

common argument. yeah, but what about this law and what about this law. well, granted, that was that law for that point in time, and i'm under no obligation to do that. but when a law says for instance you will always tell the truth, you may not lie, sorry, that doesn't matter how times change. >> here's my confusion about you. because you have been with your wife kay, extremely generous in tackling things like aids. you have given millions to helping fight aids. >> with gay organizations all around the world. >> right. right. so you clearly have no problem with gay people per se. yet you want to prevent them having the same rights to get married as straight people. that leads me to i suppose a more obvious supplementary question. do you personally believe that gay people are born gay? or do they become gay? are they made gay? >> yeah. yeah. you know what, i think the

jury's still out on that. it wouldn't bother me if there was quote, a gay gene found, because here's what we know about life. i have all kinds of natural feelings in my life and it doesn't necessarily mean that i should act on every feeling. sometimes i get angry and i feel like punching a guy in the nose. it doesn't mean i act on it. sometimes as you pointed out, sometimes i feel attracted to women who are not my wife. i don't act on it. just because i have a feeling doesn't make it right. not everything natural is good for me. >> but that's why, rick, that's why i have to jump in again. that is why this is such an interesting debate, because i just believe fundamentally and passionately that gay people are born gay. i don't think you become gay. and i think if you were able to convince yourself that they were born gay, you would see it differently.

you would see it as a natural condition that people are gay, and then you may change your mind about their rights to have the same fundamental rights as straight people. but if you still believe that they're not born gay but become or get turned gay, then i can see that you can hide behind that as the justification, if you like, for not endorsing same sex marriage. >> i do not believe attraction is a sin, but i do believe that some actions are sin. i'm not responsible for all of my attractions. we know, for instance, that some people are born with natural predispositions toward certain things, either good or bad. every one of us have those. i may not -- i'm automatically attracted to certain kinds of art, certain kinds of music, certain kinds -- i don't think that's a matter of right or wrong.

but the bible clearly states that i am absolutely in control of my actions, and since i have chosen as my authority for my life not the government, not common culture -- by the way, i appreciate the way you're developing this right now because this is the very kind of discussions that we need to be having that are saying, that treat everybody with dignity, that treat everybody with love, but could disagree on certain issues and still say you know what, i don't agree with that guy but i think he has come to his position from his background and from his basis. >> rick, i want to take a short break. let's continue this after the break. and also talk about this fantastic story today, angus jones from "two and a half men" who described his own show as complete filth. want to know if you agree with him. oh, really. i haven't heard this yet. hmm, it says here that cheerios helps lower cholesterol

as part of a heart healthy diet. that's true. ...but you still have to go to the gym. ♪ the one and only, cheerios

>> announcer: 'tis the season of more-- more shopping, more dining out... and along with it, more identity theft. by the time this holiday season is over, an estimated 1.2 million identities may be stolen. every time you pull out your wallet, shop online or hit the road, you give thieves a chance to ruin your holiday. by the time you're done watching

this, as many as 40 more identities may be stolen. you can't be on the lookout 24/7, but lifelock can. they're relentless about protecting your identity every minute of every day. when someone tries to take over your bank accounts, drain the equity in your home, or even tries to buy a car in your name, lifelock is on guard. and with lifelock's 24/7 alerts, they contact you by text, phone or email as soon as they detect suspicious activity in their network. lifelock wants you to be protected this holiday season, so they're giving you 60 days of protection risk-free. >> my years as a prosecutor taught me that you have to be proactive to protect yourself from crime, and that's especially true of identity theft. that's why i'm a member of lifelock. >> announcer: absolutely no one protects you better than lifelock, and they stand behind their protection with the power of their $1 million service guarantee. in fact, last year, lifelock protected over two million people during the holidays.

and now they can do it for you. try lifelock's protection 60 days risk-free. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com/holidays. it only takes minutes to sign up. use promo code: holidays. order now and get a special holiday gift: a document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands... a $29 value, free! call the number on your screen or go online and let lifelock protect your identity for 60 days risk-free. because during the holidays, keeping your identity protected means keeping your family protected. we'll see discuss be like i can be a christian and be on a show like "two and a half men." you cannot. you cannot be a true god fearing person and be on a television show like that i know i can't. i am not okay with what i'm learning what the bible says and being on that television show. >> angus t. jones, young star of "two and a half men," attacking

his own show, calling it filth and saying it goes against his christian values. >> he has now recanted and apologized i suspect at the behest of his publicist and employers. he felt very compromised about his new christian beliefs in terms of what he has done on the show. the show to most people is a bit of fun comedy. do you think he's taking it too far? what would you council him? >> well, i don't really know his motivation behind it, so i would -- i would like to talk to him first before i would comment on his issue. i would say, and i think pretty mush there is is agreement, that there has been a coarsenning of our culture over generations and generations. things that used to happen in college, you know, filtered down to high school level into the junior high level. i was talking to somebody today just in the green room and they were telling me their grade school teacher was asked --

asked everybody in the class to write a letter on friendship. an essay on friendship. this is a group of fifth graders and one of the girls wrote an essay on friends with benefits on the concept of having sex with whoever you want to. this is a girl in the fifth grade. obviously, things are getting -- the standards of morality seem to be going lower and lower in our culture. and another thing that's happening is that the internet has definitely increased the level of rudeness in our society. we are losing, piers, the civility in our civilization. it's very easy to hide behind a screen and to lob emotionally loaded words and attacks although people without even -- you know, in the protection of your own security of your home,

and i -- i would love to see libra rals, conservatives, jews, gays, straights, to start a coalition to end stereotyping. >> i agree with that. but i have to be stereo typical and bloody rude to you. i enjoyed the conversation. please come back and discuss it in more depth soon. >> i enjoyed it. >> the book is on sale now. very good to finally get to interview you. i enjoyed it. >> thanks, piers. ♪ [ female announcer ] holiday cookies are a big job. everything has to be just right. perfection is in the details. ♪ get to holiday fun faster with pillsbury cookie dough.